Your morality on conceiving vs adopting babies when your body is weak

[triforce9001]

I would rather have a baby of my own, even if they inherit my not-so-great genetics, than adopt a child who is far superior genetically. Because remember, you are never their actual dad - the unique biological connection will never be there. That sense of being their real dad, sharing that bloodline, is something that feels very important to me

There are couples who are unable to have children of their own. Most of these people essentially consider their kids their own, so while that may be your opinion, and it is a perfectly valid opinion, it does not apply to everyone's views.

 

[The best and greatest]

Why is it a moral imperative? I don't agree with you by the way.

Because morals only exist so long as we do. Ergo survival and the continuation of the species is the ultimate moral from which all others originate.

 

[Paper Machete]

If you know you have bad shit that's going to passed down and want to breed a bunch anyway then I think that's fucked. (That being said a lot of stuff like mild autism can be a complete non-issue.) I understand it's a biological impulse. I don't think that adoption or being a step-parent is a weak thing but I do think it's perfectly reasonably that a lot of people don't want a blended family situation either.

If nature has decided that you can't conceive then just listen to her, though. Don't try to science bullshit your way out of it.

 

[We Are The Witches]

And most of them, no suprise here, are men who just go on and on about how it's sooo important to spread their shitty genes. It's painfully obvious they just want a mini-me to flex on other guys with and to avoid being a "cuck" in front of them. And the child in question is nothing but a puppy for them that just happens to have a half of their genes ("and dats why I, as a man, even give a shit about this creature, lol. It's literally me!!!"). The retard daddy won't be the one dealing with the consequences of his immature actions, because there's always a woman, who's life he can ruin instead by dropping off his offspring to her and running into the sunset.

This is pure selfishness. There's a very good reason why many men are forced to stay single and way many more who should have been. Incels are biological dead ends who have no right to even give out a peep about wanting kids. A bunch of morons and brainless apes.

And by the same token a bunch of women should not have been mothers.

It just comes down to apathetic people.

Personally, no, since I would never adopt a child either. But honestly, if someone's got their life together - emotionally mature, sane and financially stable enough to raise and love a whole human properly - then they should go for it.

What's actually messed up are people who know how much they've struggled with certain conditions such as autism or other physical/mental challenges, yet still decide to have biological kids who will inherent the same problems, if not worse.

It's part of what I'm saying, but a lot of users in here disagree with this.

 

[Audit]

Remember that there is a very limited supply of healthy babies. The babies given up for adoption overwhelmingly have serious problems themselves. Your chances of decent mental and physical health are likely better if it’s your own baby.

The waiting list for white babies that don't have FAS, autism, or any other common disorder is a mile long and populated by married couples still waiting.

On the other hand, the waiting list for the progeny of single mothers with black fathers, developmental disorders, and children over the age of 10 is basically nonexistent.

And by the same token a bunch of women should not have been mothers.

It's way more common for low quality women to reproduce than low quality men. The men usually referred to as incels are extremely undesirable on the dating market and are unlikely to ever sire offspring. Conversely, autistic and retarded women will still get knocked up regularly/raped. It's a really big problem that they have to watch for in long term care homes.

 

[Paintrick S Canlinson]

You live in a sinful, fallen world. The mitigation of suffering by not having a child is an anti-natalist idea that is nihilistic at its core. In Genesis 1:28 the Lord gives the dominion mandate to humanity which begins with the simple command "Be fruitful and multiply..." therefore having children is a biblical, moral imperative. However, adoption is also biblical as all Christians are adopted sons and daughters of God, this is expounded upon in more detail in Romans IIRC.
Bottom line, the world is a place of suffering, both your natal offspring and your adopted offspring will suffer due to genetics or some other ailment, trial, or tribulation. All of us have value by virtue of being human and being made in the image of God.
I think the fact you are thinking about such a thing shows you are capable of being a great parent due to your concern for a child that hasn't been born yet, however, I think your line of thinking is severely misguided.

 

[Safir]

I believe that love can be stronger than blood, so you can adopt a baby that will have you as their "true" parent, taking care of them from the very beginning.

1. argument from total utility
You aren't choosing between raising your own baby vs an adoptee, you're choosing between raising your own baby and an adoptee existing somewhere else vs raising an adoptee and your own baby not existing at all. Conditions where a baby is better not existing at all are numerous but collectively rare, and a lot of them are random. For a vast majority of people capable of seriously answering your question and realistically capable of adopting a child, the probability of them producing a defective baby is only slightly higher than that of a perfect chad, and if you and your spouse are unlucky to have a large (25%) chance of conceiving a monster, there's always abortion / IVF / remarriage.

2. argument from limited utility
I want the best possible baby. An adoptee isn't just someone not related by blood all else being equal, it's already been made defective by whatever made it a candidate for adoption. You don't know what the adoptee has. You're getting someone's neglected conehead mystery meat marinated in fentanyl, not a newborn chad whose chad and chadette parents tragically died in a car crash with their whole extended family.

PS
have all the babies you can naturally have with your close-in-age spouse. Assisted reproduction and affirmative action cum may be of the devil, but if you're 40 and can get your 40-year-old wife naturally pregnant, it means you're both healthy.
> but Chris-chan
There hasn't been another Chris-chan in two decades.
"a sonic fan comic persuaded me to not have kids" <- retarded.

 

[𖦹Junkpop𖦹]

you need to kill yourself or that child now

 

[Idiotron]

At this point, if you want to adopt, I would advise to adopt within your ethnic group.
Otherwise, you might raise a Colin Kapernick who will call you a white supremacist, even though you gave him the best life you possibly could.

 

[umseriously]

If I can't bear to raise up my own child who would certainly be as much as a failure as me in your hypothetical scenario, I can only imagine it would be worse with an adopted child. Atleast with a biological child I would have a forced connection made from blood. An adopted child? None whatsoever. I would only be an obstacle for them to overcome. It would be stupid of me to make my own enemy.

 

[23iwakura23]

I feel like this sort of thinking is just a depressive reflection. But at the end of the day, I think there's 2 facts that make it always moral to reproduce if you're able and don't have other obligations:

1) natural selection is still operant.
2) sexual reproduction itself is designed to smooth over genetic faults

To the first, if you're really that bad off, no one will want to reproduce with you. I mean you'll be too stupid to navigate dating, you'll be too feeble to provide for a household, you'll be too ugly too have sex with, or end of the road: your genes or some other health condition will be so broke that you don't even make viable reproductive matter like sperm/eggs, or you won't be able to actually conceive, carry the pregnancy to term, etc etc.

So if you can reproduce, you have bare minimal traits that are "fit for purpose".

To the second point, sexual reproduction itself is designed to smooth over genetic faults. You create offspring literally by recombinating your genes with another person who's hopefully not so closely related to you as to have the same genetic faults. Your inherited fault might be countered by some gene your partner has, and vise versa.

So I think those two things work it all out. If you're that bad off genetically, you won't reproduce, and even if you have some bad traits, sexual reproduction is itself designed to help conceal those.

 

[NiggerNiggerNigger]

Because morals only exist so long as we do. Ergo survival and the continuation of the species is the ultimate moral from which all others originate.

Its also a moral imperative (a naturally occurring one) that if you are a failure specimen of whatever species you are, that you deselect yourself.
That can happen for a number of reasons, and different races are effectively different species.
An indian or african can live in total squalor, with significant physical and mental deformities/handicaps, and still consider themselves successful enough specimens of their own species (race) that they'll happily procreate hundreds more of themselves any opportunity they get.
But the offspring of aristocrats are notorious for going extinct when they cannot live up to their own expectations of what they believe would qualify them as worthy specimens of their own species (race).
The entire aristocracy of Europe was upended and scattered in the previous 2 centuries, and the despoilation continues into this century as well. With your lords and their kin collapsed, the enemies of your nations target your artisans and martial families (inheritances) openly now, they invade your lands and appeal to your cultural sense of honor and justice for tolerance (even though their people have no similar sense of honor or justice that would compel them to tolerate you).

 

[23iwakura23]

The entire aristocracy of Europe was upended and scattered in the previous 2 centuries, and the despoilation continues into this century as well. With your lords and their kin collapsed,

Man, this is something I think about quite a bit.

European nobles basically practiced selective breeding among themselves for 1000 years. Like in the 1900s, upper class people had books about finding people of "good breeding" and such even.

Even with noble titles abolished in most places, it still makes me wonder: there's basically people out there right now who are a slightly fuzzed-up end-point of 1000 years of selective breeding for traits useful to management and pre-industrial military success. Like you don't just undo 1000 years of selective breeding by saying "ope, you can't put von in front of your name anymore".

 

[NiggerNiggerNigger]

Like you don't just undo 1000 years of selective breeding by saying "ope, you can't put von in front of your name anymore".

My guess is they simply moved on and made the best of their situation, not all falls being the same magnitude and it takes time and effort to mend the kind of falls from fortune that happened. Competence can take you pretty far in life and the potential for competence is higher in that group, but still not guaranteed. A lack of capital is a problem for anyone, especially when the game is rigged, and not to their favor.
Maybe they didn't know how rigged the game was, or how targeted they were or even who was targeting them, or why, but I'd wager their probabilities for success were still better than average and that they're a resilient people individually, the nobility was the apex martial stock of Europe (nobility was almost exclusively a martial construct where knighthood (officership) was the foundation of their heritages).

History is muddy field even without disruptions to inheritances. It is plausible that they are learning things this generation that are putting the big picture into a context that implies a seriousness of their place in the world that they couldn't have seen before these times.

Hopefully they do not give up. We need /our/ leaders.

 

[23iwakura23]

Hopefully they do not give up. We need /our/ leaders.

Honestly, I think people descended from nobility, either by second sons or admixture in the commons after the abolition of titles is much more normal than we think.

Like to the extent that I'd think the IQ bellcurve could be explained by it 100%, since it nearly matches the noble to ignoble ratio in history. With the selective breeding these people underwent, traits like that would still distribute in that sorta fashion according to their population I'd think.

 

[NiggerNiggerNigger]

Honestly, I think people descended from nobility, either by second sons or admixture in the commons after the abolition of titles is much more normal than we think.

I agree, the entire stock was improved by deliberate breeding, but European custom was always like that, not just higher nobility, and it affected the entire population. The viability and cohesion of a tribe depends on bonds compatibility structure and health. It was common to arrange marriages for the younger generations. The continuity and generational health of the family was too important a matter to be left for the youngest dumbest members of the family to figure out on their own, so villages had matchmakers or otherwise it was just something the elder generations discussed with their peers, and matches were made.
It was from this cultural norm that the systems of hierarchy and concept of nobility came from. An exceptional warrior's son and daughter would be exceptional by merit of their father.
History likes to paint this picture that everyone was backwards and wallowing in shit waiting for Rome to elevate them, but its not the case. Arguably the Celtic/Gothic tribes were just wiser than Rome, wise enough not to become the decadent hegemon overrun by foreign populations (slaves and merchants) that Rome had become, but they had functional systems of hierarchy and family lineage, and were not backward socially. Rome was technologically advanced but its social hierarchy was a fucking mess of compromise and bad practices.

History also paints the picture that Europeans were all unwashed pig shit shovelers and peasant laborers if they didn't own a castle. Most of the lower nobility were families that owned their own estate farms and brothers commonly all worked together on the family estate and served the higher nobility (who were the real owners of the land) unless there was some significant reason (sibling rivalry wasn't always a default) for them to fuck off and take up their own trade. In many cases the 2nd/3rd sons of lower nobility WANTED to leave the estate to earn their own way at something else because the opportunities were better for them to do so, and there's no great reason for them to stay since they'll never be Freiherr Von Richthofen but if they leave and join the military academy they can become the Junker soldier father of the Junker soldier father of Field Marshall Paul von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg.

I think a good portion of European stock has ties to higher nobility and some relation to 2nd/3rd sons, but even more to lesser nobility (Junkers, or knight families). The entire system of nobility comes from broader customs designed to preserve and improve the cohesion vitality and health of the tribe, the lesser nobility was specifically notable for breeding military leaders meant to fight or alternatively meant to advise/support higher nobility. Hierarchy is good, everyone knows their place in the larger organism and there is no wasteful counterproductive strife.

I think the take away is that the cultural systems were good because what they produced was merit and higher potential for merit, and if there is some echo of that merit that has somehow outlived the cultural systems themselves, then there's a good case to revive those customs, because what supplanted them is destructive to merit and the potential for merit, and has not yet proven otherwise (assuming it is even trying to).

Its an interesting subject.

 

[23iwakura23]

History also paints the picture that Europeans were all unwashed pig shit shovelers and peasant laborers if they didn't own a castle.

I would say "the history channel" but not history itself. Like if you get the story of Don Quixote, good ol' Don was sitting in his era, but a middle manager and mayor of a town. He tilted at windmills willing for a bygone era of military might.

But his story I think tells us that there was a "normal" sort of "middle management" class of "ordinary nobles". And when you look at the status of the condottieri, they owned no lands, much less castles. They were merely better men who could sell you a better man fucking up your enemies. And they'd swing a montante into your head on a bridge if you were nigger enough to cross it.

Hence even we have the condottieros who serve the pope in rome 500 years later from switzerland.

Theres a particularness to the higher breed that exists. Dunno how to say it. History channel doesn't want to say it, but any cursory study of history finds it immediately, which is why that field is so dangerous.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Fundamentally I have an issue with people that don't want to have children for reasons of responsibility or low self-view.

It's only possible to reason this way because of a mixture of intelligence, restraint and responsibility. That's the traits you are weeding out of the human race. Because those without intelligence, restraint and responsibility but otherwise in the same situation would not be having children.

I do consider adoption a very noble thing to do, almost as noble as having children. Of course in both cases, with the precept of taking care of them well.

Even if it makes them suffer (more)? Or have a great chance of not succeeding?

I think your line of logic is close to the actual anti-natalist line of reasoning. We all suffer. Your bio kids would suffer. Your adopted kids would suffer. We know this, because everyone we know suffers. The anti natalist world view uses suffering as their philophical basis to call making kids immoral.

It's a very widespread view, particularly among feminists, though I personally also know some non-feminist autists who have latched on to it.

In other words, the quality of life of your own child will be somewhat heavily impacted negatively, while if you adopted, it won't as much or at all, by a relatively noticeable margin

I don't think we're very good judges of predicting this. My first instinct if you were someone close to me would be to interrogate you about why you would think this way. I would consider the source to more likely be anxiety, depression or low self esteem, than whatever specific conditions you are thinking about. I'm not saying I'm sure it has to be the source, but that's what I would investigate. Because I have seen it both in myself and others that those paths of thinking are built more from a sense of doom and insecurity than the actual reasons I was thinking about at the time that I thought was informing them.

That's not to negate any of your suffering from whatever disease or genetics may be causing you suffering that you wouldn't want to pass on. Just that the depressed view on it is a much stronger modifier than you may currently be accounting for, because that's what I saw in myself and others more than once. That later without curing the conditions that I was thinking about, the genetic makeup for example, it's possible to get a much better view simply by changing perspective and outlook.

The fact that you would consider not having bio children for responsible reasons shows that you have the genes of someone that thinks responsibly about others. Which is an excellent trait to propagate.

Finally one of the taboos of our society is to overestimate the parental effect and underestimate the genetic effect. Twin adoption studies show that for complex behaviour like level of education followed in life, or whether you smoke or drink, is much more decided by who your bio parent is than who your adoptive parent it. Twins adopted by different parents correlate about 0.7 to each other and 0.1 to their adoptive parents.

I would urge people that compare adoption to having children themselves to consider that adoption is very benevolent, but it is also very different. You'll have a much harder time understanding and getting the moods and drives of an adopted child.

@We Are The Witches

and finally I'd like to say how valuable it is that you are discussing this subject. Good for you about thinking about these things out loud, asking questions. More people should do that.

 

[Otterly]

I’d also stick my neck out and wonder if part of the question is a bit of a fear of pregnancy and birth. How do you feel about pregnancy and birth in and of themselves @We Are The Witches ?

 

[NiggerNiggerNigger]

I would say "the history channel" but not history itself.

Yeah. Media projection becomes the perception of an "objective" history.
People don't have nearly enough contempt for the media.

There's a particularness to the higher breed that exists.

And likely always has and always will, where one claim becomes relevant its counter claim rises to relevance with it. Its why martial orders are so precise, they keep a clean ledger of things they would claim so that there are few conflicts of interest in their actions. And whether or not martial orders have declined from past states doesn't matter when the logic in keeping a clean ledger of claims for those reasons is so logical and sound it will always exist.
There is a purity of purpose and powerful peripheral effect when significant populations pursue martial spiritual excellence exclusively for the sake of martial spiritual excellence.

a sort of total upgrade to the entity. from the individual to the nation and everything in between.